Marshall Schor wrote: > Thilo Goetz wrote: >> It's our old friend the type priorities again. Even though the test >> case does not use type priorities, types are sorted differently in >> the type system depending on JVM version. So the test case went >> through with JDK 1.6_1, but not 1.5_7, for example. This sucks. >> Since I don't have time to go after the root cause of this, I have >> modified the test case to remove this dependency. >> > As I recall, the type order changes when there is no ordering specified, > because it depends on > the order returned from "hashing"; and the hash function changed from > jdk to jdk.
Yes, I seem to remember something along those lines. It would be worth investigating if we could change the implementation not to depend on the order objects come out of a hash map. Not now, though. --Thilo
